Perhaps you have never bought music, but have you downloaded it? If you have, then you have just given the RIAA the justification they need to approach the Government to pass laws to prevent filesharing i.e. you have just supported the RIAA unintentionally. Internet radio is, in the eyes of the RIAA, simply making more music available in digital form which can be quickly replicated and distributed. I dislike most strongly the RIAA and others like them, but I can understand what they are getting at. On the other hand, if you do not download, nor buy CDs then I salute you, but unless more people follow your lead then nothing will change.
I know it is trendy and very slashdot-groupthink to claim that music and film downloading is a legitimate right - but that is simply not true. Illegal downloading (i.e. abuse of the internet for the benefit of a selfish minority) is causing laws to be introduced which affect us all. If someone does not think that the cost to the consumer of a CD or film is justified then do without it. Life will go on and then the message will get to those who set the prices. But illegal downloading is hurting us in two ways. It gives the industry the justification to claim to those in power that P2P is inherently bad, that they are being forced out of business by illegal file sharers and that other sources of revenue must be found to make the internet uneconomical when compared with traditional forms of entertainment distribution. Secondly, by continuing to pay for CDs and films people are willingly supporting the system that the industry has created.
The basic problem is greed. Not by the industry, but by those who want the listen to music or watch a film but do not want to pay for that privilege. Save me, and the PP, from the arguments that the money is not going to the artist, or this is not theft but is simply digital duplication, because the bottom line is that such people simply want something for nothing. I fully expect to be at -1 in the next hour or two....
I sympathise. But what about all this 'for the people' crap that is often quoted to us non-USians? Either you need to change your system, or that quote is just propaganda and is nothing more than a lie. Perhaps the constitution should be rewritten to say something along the lines of 'for the corporations', or change your anthem to 'land of the capitalist, and home of the fleeced.'
SO CHANGE IT! Have you spoken to your MP? Have you told him that you and millions of others will not be voting for him unless he removes armed police from our streets? No, why? Can't you be bothered? Isn't it important enough for you to do more than type on/. ? Haven't you got millions of others who think like you do?
Now you have obviously thought about this far more than I have. You have reached conclusions. So, next time there is a terrorist threat and we call for you rather than the police, how will you solve the problem? Telling me what you wouldn't do is all well and good, but what will you do that will leave us all safe and not risk anyone's life?
No, he may only open fire if he believes 'X' poses a threat. I was not there - nor I suspect were you - so I cannot say what actions JCDM took that caused the firearm officers to believe that he was a threat but you can be sure that someone will have looked into this issue very closely.
Why only 7 shots - did they run out of ammunition? Once the decision is made to kill someone (and it is not a decision that is ever made lightly), then limiting the number of shots only serves to increase the risk to those required to enforce the law on our behalf. It is standard training. They do not do it because they have a bloodlust, nor are they out-of-control killers. They are being tasked to do an unpleasant and dangerous job because we, the public, demand that someone protects us. If you don't like the training, or object even to having armed police at all, seek out your Member of Parliament and have him do something about it. But please don't come complaining when the next armed robbery takes place and the only counter we have are policemen carrying a truncheon. You can have it anyway you please, but you cannot have it both ways at once.
I've got some bad news for you then. If a firearms officer is told that 'X' is a terrorist, he is not expected to conduct his own investigation as to whether 'X' really is a terrorist or not. He has to accept the information that he is given - the responsibility for this lies with his superiors. The firearms officer is not the one responsible in this case. He was acting on information that he had been given which had been approved by his superiors. If he believes that 'X' posed a threat his correct response was to open fire - at whatever range he can reasonably expect to achieve a 'kill' - and remove the threat without unduly risking the life of others. Police do NOT aim to wound. A head shot is acceptable when it can be done without risk to others, otherwise multiple shots to the body are usually deemed as acceptable.
Your English is superb, particularly so as it is not your first language. However, I think the word that you were looking for is aurally rather than audially - at least, I think that is the word that you are looking for. Your version (audially) is entirely understandable and follows the path of common sense, hence it will never be adopted in the UK but probably will be used in the USA at some point in the future!;-)
Thanks for the links. However, although the main link exists, many of the others on that page are currently showing 404 errors. Perhaps this is a temporary phenomenon. And I haven't found any working link that suggests flooding the web with random data but perhaps that is one of the error pages.
That's not entirely accurate. You must handover the key to any suitably authrorised individual upon demand. If they don't ask, you do not have to give it.
But the solution is easy. Start flooding the internet with encrypted data. The government will not be able to cope with the demand and will begin to ask for keys. They will next forbid the use of encryption unless specifically authorised. This will affect business although the companies will undoubtedly comply. The next stage is to flood the internet with random data. It is not encrypted but they will not be able to tell the difference without expending considerable effort. They will then have to introduce a law forbidding the transfer of data which appears to be encrypted. At which point you start flooding the internet with binary snapshots of part of your computer OS. It is not encrypted data, it is not intended to appear as encrypted data, it is simply data that is only recognisable by a small minority of individuals. Pick the code from snapshots of 6502, z80, pdp11, digital watches, etc just to make if difficult to devise automatic systems for identifying the origin of the code. Or send a series of telephone numbers, or geographical coordinates, or calculate the surface area of a pencil to 1000 decimal places and send the number in groups of 5 figures. And so the battle goes on. Each time the government will have to expend significant energy trying to block all the loopholes in its laws and will be facing a deluge of data which they cannot hope to decode - even if such data is 'decodable'. The data itself will not be illegal and the bureaucracy of trying to combat it will drown the system.
The criminals will not be affected by any of this. They will continue take the risk and use encryption without authority or simply hide behind the terrific amount of data that is swirling around on the net. The government will realise that their legislation is achieving nothing and will have to look for alternative measures to combat crime - which is what they should have done in the first place. Just as they have the right ot open your mail with a duly-authorized warrant, they cannot practically hope open all mail in order to try to find something that indicates criminal intent.
This is like any electronic warfare problem. For each measure there is a counter-measure and it is simply a matter of taking each step at a time to ensure that your opposition has to keep working hard to keep pace. I am not suggesting this to support criminals and paedophiles, but as a lesson to the government that it cannot hope to remove encryption for existence or to prevent its use. It is an essential part of our business life, commercial activities depend on the passage of none-textual data and every computer contains the code to send binary data to another source. For example, Microsoft's 'phone-home' data. Of course, if is possible to look at every item of data and devise a method of automatically identifying its 'threat' value. Is it 586 or Z80 code, is it being sent to a specific IP address, or does it contain easily identifiable start and end markings? But each of these, particularly if experienced sequentially, will increase the effort on the part of those trying to prevent the use of encryption such that it significantly increases the cost of the task for little or no appreciable gain.
I'm sure that some of you will be able to pick holes in parts of this strategy but other equally smart people will be able to suggest the corrective action. That's what makes electronic warfare, to me, quite irresistible.
If you can't even spell Kosovo correctly, what does it say for the rest of your 'facts'? Of course, you have never been there but you sure do fight a good armchair war. Why don't you try reading one of many news agency feeds to find out what went on, and what is going on now? For example, the Russians ARE looting in Gori at present so they are far from being angels in this matter but Georgia started this war itself. In Gori, many of the locals have decided to leave - a form of 'amusing' ethnic cleansing in your words - but, as they leave, they are being made to give up their possessions. My only question is what on earth was Georgia up to? Did they really think they could win and, if so, why?
I don't agree. It is far too soon for lessons 'learned' from the current war between Georgia and Russia to be implemented into changes of military structure. Perhaps in 12-18 months when we have collected as much intelligence as we can on what happened, what we think each side thought was happening, what problems they each encountered and how they solved them etc. We are nowhere near that stage now. We know there is/was a war but we haven't analysed all the relevant int to decide how it affected decision making. And, until we have done that, there is no point in trying to devise the appropriate strategy to combat their current thought processes.
Jesus, when will these dummies wake up and start using science instead of superstition?
Er, I am assuming that you are a Christian because of your invocation of the name of Jesus, otherwise why use His name at all?. Now read your quote again. Can you prove your belief by science? Tell us about how the world was created, or what happens to us when we die. You see, many of us have 'superstitions' but in your mind those of others are unacceptable while yours is special.
...work their bestial ways on Tibet and the Uighur peoples...
So tell me again about how you embraced the Native Americans.
savagery toward others.
Anybody recall Iraq or Vietnam? Of course, we can justify these because we did them. But some others viewed them differently.
What should happen is that they get their faces slapped bloody.
And that is your best suggestion? Violence! How insightful that you have reached a solution that you are certain would be both simple yet effective. However, at the time of my comment it isn't scored as such.
They have thousands of years of culture, religion and tradition, and you have less than 200. You may not agree with them - that of course is your right - but you should not dictate what others do outside your country unless their actions directly threaten your own survival. But if you try to see things from someone else's point of view rather than just using selective arguments and then advocating violence, I might be able to find some merit in something that you have said, much of which I might have agreed with if you had argued it better.
The United States and freedom of speech gives him the right to tell others that they are wrong for any reason at all
You missed part of it out. It gives him the right to tell anyone that he thinks that they are wrong but it only gives him the right to tell Americans what to do. The rest of the world does not appreciate being 'told what to do' by foreigners who might think that their law gives them a right to behave as they wish wherever they are. The Japanese in TFA don't need to be told by an American, or anyone else for that matter, that they should accept Google's behaviour even if it does not comply with local laws, customs and culture. We must all accept the local laws and customs. If we don't like them, then don't go there. And that, in essence, is the thrust behind TFA and the problem that Google is now facing.
But if my culture says that I should be able to stand in front of my window without people rudely staring in at me, then I can see why someone might be highly offended at being photographed whilst in their own home. We are arguing semantics if we debate how far inside my home I am standing, or how close a camera must be to the window to become intrusive. In the West we might accept such things but it does not surprise me that other nations might not be as comfortable with this as we are. The Japanese simply draw the line at a different place and their upbringing and culture trains them to respect the limits that they have chosen. Google's activities seem to have gone beyond what the Japanese think is acceptable and, in Japan and elsewhere, Google should desist from crossing those cultural lines, IMHO.
...the simple fact is that the Western system states that anything not prohibited by law is permitted, and if the Japanese want to enforce morality, they must write it into law.
I understand the point you are making but the Japanese are not Western, they are oriental. We might have to change our laws to prevent Google from being intrusive but, as I do not know enough about Japanese law with regards to what is permitted and what is not, I cannot support your supposition that it is a Japanese failing in some respect.
As an example, in France (and some other European countries - please no anti-France jokes) if someone takes a photograph of you sunbathing in your garden then it can be an intrusion of your privacy. The photographer might be standing in a public place. The individual has a right to expect that people should not take undue interest in your (legal) activities when you are on your own property and the courts can award penalties against the photographer that others might find excessive. When in Rome,....or should that be Paris?
I'm sorry that you feel that way. It wasn't my intention to be arrogant in reply to the post I was commenting on. However, I feel very strongly that others shouldn't dictate what different nations do. In this case the GP was suggesting that the Japanese ought to change their views to ensure that Google wasn't facing cultural sensitivity. I do not agree. The Japanese are quite entitled to do what they damn well please in their own country and the rest of us will just have to put up with it. The Japanese culture may be very different from that of the GP, or you, or mine for that matter. But it is an ancient culture and we ought to show them at least a little respect. As I have already pointed out, I have no problem with Google driving around and photographing the whole of the USA if that's what Americans think is right and proper. But Google do not have the right to insist that they can do what they please anywhere in the world simply because Americans think it is a good idea. The opinions of the people whose country is being photographed should be paramount. And the Japanese think, according to TFA, that this behaviour is beyond that which is deemed acceptable. Now, I'm not sure what part of that point of view you believe to suggests my arrogance, but perhaps you will tell me?
Secondly, what exactly is my 'interesting mental issue' that you refer to? The fact that I respect other cultures, other nations' sovereignty or the right for each nation to decide its own set of laws and rules by which they live? If so, then I am proud of it but, all the same, I would rather that you clarified this point for me. Thank you.
But YOU obviously don't see the point. YOU feel that such people should 'grow up and smell the cameras'. YOU think that 'It'd just be pure insanity if we were to actually give these people what would be required to accommodate THEM.' Of course, YOU are entitled to YOUR opinion but, in THEIR country, they are entitled to THEIRS, and THEY are allowed to live as THEY want to live, not as YOU think that they should. We are all human beings and we each have an equal right to live our lives as we choose. Others don't need your permission as to what is right or wrong, not should you presume to advise them based on your 'superior' status and knowledge. What arrogance and ignorance YOU demonstrate by assuming that YOU are required to accommodate THEM in THEIR country. Why don't you just invade them and teach them how much better your society is?
So, if their culture has developed differently then yours then you are free to criticise it, but you sure as Hell are not entitled to dictate what they must do. Otherwise what 'sort of crazy rules and jackbooted enforcement policies' will YOU want to enforce next. YOU live in YOUR country, and let OTHERS live as they wish in THEIRS.
I must truly say that I am amazed at your arrogance.
What the Japanese people are about to discover is that their expectation of privacy was ALREADY too high.
And who gave you the right to decide how each country and culture should think? You might not agree with the Japanese view - tough luck, just don't choose to live there. But you have not got the right to tell others that they are wrong simply because it is not in accord with your own personal view or it isn't the view adopted by your own country.
Are you honestly suggesting that Google should be censoring content it indexes based on "morality" and not legality?
No, but Google shouldn't be conducting itself in a manner which local custom and culture say is unacceptable. If Google doesn't like it then they can go elsewhere. I'm sure that there are huge expanses of the USA which haven't been photographed yet. Why not concentrate on their home ground and then, if other nation's decide that it is a good idea - and perhaps there is money to be made - they can invite Google to do the same in their country.
By the way, has Google tried doing this in some parts of Russia yet? There are areas occupied by the 'nouveau riche' where they will be lucky to leave alive. Ditto, there are areas in China and N Korea I believe where they will not be welcomed. You see, I don't think that they will operate in such places with the same degree of freedom as they expect in some other places, because those nations deem it unacceptable behaviour.
Well, if you insist on being pedantic. Google personnel, or people employed by Google, drove the vehicle to the location in which the 360 degree camera was used. The view, as seen by the camera, was very much directed ('pointed') by people. Your contribution doesn't change the fact that Google direct where the camera is used and, in some cultures but obviously not yours, those places are deemed to be private i.e. it is perhaps not illegal but it is most certainly unacceptable behaviour to those living there. Why on earth do we need an image of every street in the world on the Internet? And, if we don't need 'every' street, why don't we ask the occupants of each street whether they want Google poking their cameras around?
There is no need for a battle for our hearts and minds in Europe. We are able to make our own judgements based on facts, not on another nation's propaganda campaign. We too have people (diplomats, businessmen, casual visitors etc) in the region and do not need to rely on a third party to tell us what has been happening there, and is actually happening now. Why do you feel that you need to mount a 'media war' in Europe. We are allies but, if this is how you treat your friends, perhaps we would be better off rethinking that deal.
Nit-picking, I know. The country is Great Britain, and its inhabitants are, for the most part, British. There is no 'Brittish' news that I can find. A runaway keyboard, perhaps?:-)
Certainly over here in Europe you will have just committed an offence. The unauthorised access of someone else's computer is illegal, yes, even those computers being used by criminals. There is no "Robin Hood Excuse" that will change the fact that your actions are illegal. Now, as the US has just been successful in claiming the extradition of a British cracker, I'm sure that the US will be equally happy to extradite all those Americans who hack into European criminals' computers to face charges over here. Alternatively, you might have been suggesting that all phishers are American and that as long as such actions are contained inside the USA it is all entirely acceptable.
That's one of the problems of being a vigilante, you often have to be a criminal to do what you 'believe' to be justice. It doesn't make the vigilante any better in my eyes.
Are you suggesting that Twitter has no right to comment on the actions of the PRC or MediaSentry? If you are, then you are following in the footsteps of the PRC and their wish to control information and suppress free speech.
I agree that Twitter is being stupid when he engages in one of his "single-person, numerous-monikas" conversations, but if he wishes to join in an intelligent conversation that he has as much right as you or I to do so.
On the other hand, if you were just informing the GP that Twitter uses a specific monika then I am confused with that fact's relevance to the topic under discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps you have never bought music, but have you downloaded it? If you have, then you have just given the RIAA the justification they need to approach the Government to pass laws to prevent filesharing i.e. you have just supported the RIAA unintentionally. Internet radio is, in the eyes of the RIAA, simply making more music available in digital form which can be quickly replicated and distributed. I dislike most strongly the RIAA and others like them, but I can understand what they are getting at. On the other hand, if you do not download, nor buy CDs then I salute you, but unless more people follow your lead then nothing will change.
Spot on! You have covered both points accurately
I know it is trendy and very slashdot-groupthink to claim that music and film downloading is a legitimate right - but that is simply not true. Illegal downloading (i.e. abuse of the internet for the benefit of a selfish minority) is causing laws to be introduced which affect us all. If someone does not think that the cost to the consumer of a CD or film is justified then do without it. Life will go on and then the message will get to those who set the prices. But illegal downloading is hurting us in two ways. It gives the industry the justification to claim to those in power that P2P is inherently bad, that they are being forced out of business by illegal file sharers and that other sources of revenue must be found to make the internet uneconomical when compared with traditional forms of entertainment distribution. Secondly, by continuing to pay for CDs and films people are willingly supporting the system that the industry has created.
The basic problem is greed. Not by the industry, but by those who want the listen to music or watch a film but do not want to pay for that privilege. Save me, and the PP, from the arguments that the money is not going to the artist, or this is not theft but is simply digital duplication, because the bottom line is that such people simply want something for nothing. I fully expect to be at -1 in the next hour or two....
I sympathise. But what about all this 'for the people' crap that is often quoted to us non-USians? Either you need to change your system, or that quote is just propaganda and is nothing more than a lie. Perhaps the constitution should be rewritten to say something along the lines of 'for the corporations', or change your anthem to 'land of the capitalist, and home of the fleeced.'
SO CHANGE IT! Have you spoken to your MP? Have you told him that you and millions of others will not be voting for him unless he removes armed police from our streets? No, why? Can't you be bothered? Isn't it important enough for you to do more than type on /. ? Haven't you got millions of others who think like you do?
Now you have obviously thought about this far more than I have. You have reached conclusions. So, next time there is a terrorist threat and we call for you rather than the police, how will you solve the problem? Telling me what you wouldn't do is all well and good, but what will you do that will leave us all safe and not risk anyone's life?
So is downloading movies and music supposed to be OK then? Why? If you can't be bothered to buy it, do without it.
No, he may only open fire if he believes 'X' poses a threat. I was not there - nor I suspect were you - so I cannot say what actions JCDM took that caused the firearm officers to believe that he was a threat but you can be sure that someone will have looked into this issue very closely.
Why only 7 shots - did they run out of ammunition? Once the decision is made to kill someone (and it is not a decision that is ever made lightly), then limiting the number of shots only serves to increase the risk to those required to enforce the law on our behalf. It is standard training. They do not do it because they have a bloodlust, nor are they out-of-control killers. They are being tasked to do an unpleasant and dangerous job because we, the public, demand that someone protects us. If you don't like the training, or object even to having armed police at all, seek out your Member of Parliament and have him do something about it. But please don't come complaining when the next armed robbery takes place and the only counter we have are policemen carrying a truncheon. You can have it anyway you please, but you cannot have it both ways at once.
I've got some bad news for you then. If a firearms officer is told that 'X' is a terrorist, he is not expected to conduct his own investigation as to whether 'X' really is a terrorist or not. He has to accept the information that he is given - the responsibility for this lies with his superiors. The firearms officer is not the one responsible in this case. He was acting on information that he had been given which had been approved by his superiors. If he believes that 'X' posed a threat his correct response was to open fire - at whatever range he can reasonably expect to achieve a 'kill' - and remove the threat without unduly risking the life of others. Police do NOT aim to wound. A head shot is acceptable when it can be done without risk to others, otherwise multiple shots to the body are usually deemed as acceptable.
Your English is superb, particularly so as it is not your first language. However, I think the word that you were looking for is aurally rather than audially - at least, I think that is the word that you are looking for. Your version (audially) is entirely understandable and follows the path of common sense, hence it will never be adopted in the UK but probably will be used in the USA at some point in the future! ;-)
Thanks for the links. However, although the main link exists, many of the others on that page are currently showing 404 errors. Perhaps this is a temporary phenomenon. And I haven't found any working link that suggests flooding the web with random data but perhaps that is one of the error pages.
That's not entirely accurate. You must handover the key to any suitably authrorised individual upon demand. If they don't ask, you do not have to give it.
But the solution is easy. Start flooding the internet with encrypted data. The government will not be able to cope with the demand and will begin to ask for keys. They will next forbid the use of encryption unless specifically authorised. This will affect business although the companies will undoubtedly comply. The next stage is to flood the internet with random data. It is not encrypted but they will not be able to tell the difference without expending considerable effort. They will then have to introduce a law forbidding the transfer of data which appears to be encrypted. At which point you start flooding the internet with binary snapshots of part of your computer OS. It is not encrypted data, it is not intended to appear as encrypted data, it is simply data that is only recognisable by a small minority of individuals. Pick the code from snapshots of 6502, z80, pdp11, digital watches, etc just to make if difficult to devise automatic systems for identifying the origin of the code. Or send a series of telephone numbers, or geographical coordinates, or calculate the surface area of a pencil to 1000 decimal places and send the number in groups of 5 figures. And so the battle goes on. Each time the government will have to expend significant energy trying to block all the loopholes in its laws and will be facing a deluge of data which they cannot hope to decode - even if such data is 'decodable'. The data itself will not be illegal and the bureaucracy of trying to combat it will drown the system.
The criminals will not be affected by any of this. They will continue take the risk and use encryption without authority or simply hide behind the terrific amount of data that is swirling around on the net. The government will realise that their legislation is achieving nothing and will have to look for alternative measures to combat crime - which is what they should have done in the first place. Just as they have the right ot open your mail with a duly-authorized warrant, they cannot practically hope open all mail in order to try to find something that indicates criminal intent.
This is like any electronic warfare problem. For each measure there is a counter-measure and it is simply a matter of taking each step at a time to ensure that your opposition has to keep working hard to keep pace. I am not suggesting this to support criminals and paedophiles, but as a lesson to the government that it cannot hope to remove encryption for existence or to prevent its use. It is an essential part of our business life, commercial activities depend on the passage of none-textual data and every computer contains the code to send binary data to another source. For example, Microsoft's 'phone-home' data. Of course, if is possible to look at every item of data and devise a method of automatically identifying its 'threat' value. Is it 586 or Z80 code, is it being sent to a specific IP address, or does it contain easily identifiable start and end markings? But each of these, particularly if experienced sequentially, will increase the effort on the part of those trying to prevent the use of encryption such that it significantly increases the cost of the task for little or no appreciable gain.
I'm sure that some of you will be able to pick holes in parts of this strategy but other equally smart people will be able to suggest the corrective action. That's what makes electronic warfare, to me, quite irresistible.
If you can't even spell Kosovo correctly, what does it say for the rest of your 'facts'? Of course, you have never been there but you sure do fight a good armchair war. Why don't you try reading one of many news agency feeds to find out what went on, and what is going on now? For example, the Russians ARE looting in Gori at present so they are far from being angels in this matter but Georgia started this war itself. In Gori, many of the locals have decided to leave - a form of 'amusing' ethnic cleansing in your words - but, as they leave, they are being made to give up their possessions. My only question is what on earth was Georgia up to? Did they really think they could win and, if so, why?
I don't agree. It is far too soon for lessons 'learned' from the current war between Georgia and Russia to be implemented into changes of military structure. Perhaps in 12-18 months when we have collected as much intelligence as we can on what happened, what we think each side thought was happening, what problems they each encountered and how they solved them etc. We are nowhere near that stage now. We know there is/was a war but we haven't analysed all the relevant int to decide how it affected decision making. And, until we have done that, there is no point in trying to devise the appropriate strategy to combat their current thought processes.
Jesus, when will these dummies wake up and start using science instead of superstition?
Er, I am assuming that you are a Christian because of your invocation of the name of Jesus, otherwise why use His name at all?. Now read your quote again. Can you prove your belief by science? Tell us about how the world was created, or what happens to us when we die. You see, many of us have 'superstitions' but in your mind those of others are unacceptable while yours is special.
...work their bestial ways on Tibet and the Uighur peoples...
So tell me again about how you embraced the Native Americans.
savagery toward others.
Anybody recall Iraq or Vietnam? Of course, we can justify these because we did them. But some others viewed them differently.
What should happen is that they get their faces slapped bloody.
And that is your best suggestion? Violence! How insightful that you have reached a solution that you are certain would be both simple yet effective. However, at the time of my comment it isn't scored as such.
They have thousands of years of culture, religion and tradition, and you have less than 200. You may not agree with them - that of course is your right - but you should not dictate what others do outside your country unless their actions directly threaten your own survival. But if you try to see things from someone else's point of view rather than just using selective arguments and then advocating violence, I might be able to find some merit in something that you have said, much of which I might have agreed with if you had argued it better.
The United States and freedom of speech gives him the right to tell others that they are wrong for any reason at all
You missed part of it out. It gives him the right to tell anyone that he thinks that they are wrong but it only gives him the right to tell Americans what to do. The rest of the world does not appreciate being 'told what to do' by foreigners who might think that their law gives them a right to behave as they wish wherever they are. The Japanese in TFA don't need to be told by an American, or anyone else for that matter, that they should accept Google's behaviour even if it does not comply with local laws, customs and culture. We must all accept the local laws and customs. If we don't like them, then don't go there. And that, in essence, is the thrust behind TFA and the problem that Google is now facing.
But if my culture says that I should be able to stand in front of my window without people rudely staring in at me, then I can see why someone might be highly offended at being photographed whilst in their own home. We are arguing semantics if we debate how far inside my home I am standing, or how close a camera must be to the window to become intrusive. In the West we might accept such things but it does not surprise me that other nations might not be as comfortable with this as we are. The Japanese simply draw the line at a different place and their upbringing and culture trains them to respect the limits that they have chosen. Google's activities seem to have gone beyond what the Japanese think is acceptable and, in Japan and elsewhere, Google should desist from crossing those cultural lines, IMHO.
I understand the point you are making but the Japanese are not Western, they are oriental. We might have to change our laws to prevent Google from being intrusive but, as I do not know enough about Japanese law with regards to what is permitted and what is not, I cannot support your supposition that it is a Japanese failing in some respect.
As an example, in France (and some other European countries - please no anti-France jokes) if someone takes a photograph of you sunbathing in your garden then it can be an intrusion of your privacy. The photographer might be standing in a public place. The individual has a right to expect that people should not take undue interest in your (legal) activities when you are on your own property and the courts can award penalties against the photographer that others might find excessive. When in Rome,....or should that be Paris?
Holy shit, YOU ARE THE ARROGANT ONE.
I'm sorry that you feel that way. It wasn't my intention to be arrogant in reply to the post I was commenting on. However, I feel very strongly that others shouldn't dictate what different nations do. In this case the GP was suggesting that the Japanese ought to change their views to ensure that Google wasn't facing cultural sensitivity. I do not agree. The Japanese are quite entitled to do what they damn well please in their own country and the rest of us will just have to put up with it. The Japanese culture may be very different from that of the GP, or you, or mine for that matter. But it is an ancient culture and we ought to show them at least a little respect. As I have already pointed out, I have no problem with Google driving around and photographing the whole of the USA if that's what Americans think is right and proper. But Google do not have the right to insist that they can do what they please anywhere in the world simply because Americans think it is a good idea. The opinions of the people whose country is being photographed should be paramount. And the Japanese think, according to TFA, that this behaviour is beyond that which is deemed acceptable. Now, I'm not sure what part of that point of view you believe to suggests my arrogance, but perhaps you will tell me?
Secondly, what exactly is my 'interesting mental issue' that you refer to? The fact that I respect other cultures, other nations' sovereignty or the right for each nation to decide its own set of laws and rules by which they live? If so, then I am proud of it but, all the same, I would rather that you clarified this point for me. Thank you.
s/not should/nor should/
s/differently then/differently than/
Oops.:-)
Thank you, but the link doesn't mention a media battle nor propaganda. So your point is?
But YOU obviously don't see the point. YOU feel that such people should 'grow up and smell the cameras'. YOU think that 'It'd just be pure insanity if we were to actually give these people what would be required to accommodate THEM.' Of course, YOU are entitled to YOUR opinion but, in THEIR country, they are entitled to THEIRS, and THEY are allowed to live as THEY want to live, not as YOU think that they should. We are all human beings and we each have an equal right to live our lives as we choose. Others don't need your permission as to what is right or wrong, not should you presume to advise them based on your 'superior' status and knowledge. What arrogance and ignorance YOU demonstrate by assuming that YOU are required to accommodate THEM in THEIR country. Why don't you just invade them and teach them how much better your society is?
So, if their culture has developed differently then yours then you are free to criticise it, but you sure as Hell are not entitled to dictate what they must do. Otherwise what 'sort of crazy rules and jackbooted enforcement policies' will YOU want to enforce next. YOU live in YOUR country, and let OTHERS live as they wish in THEIRS.
I must truly say that I am amazed at your arrogance.
What the Japanese people are about to discover is that their expectation of privacy was ALREADY too high.
And who gave you the right to decide how each country and culture should think? You might not agree with the Japanese view - tough luck, just don't choose to live there. But you have not got the right to tell others that they are wrong simply because it is not in accord with your own personal view or it isn't the view adopted by your own country.
Are you honestly suggesting that Google should be censoring content it indexes based on "morality" and not legality?
No, but Google shouldn't be conducting itself in a manner which local custom and culture say is unacceptable. If Google doesn't like it then they can go elsewhere. I'm sure that there are huge expanses of the USA which haven't been photographed yet. Why not concentrate on their home ground and then, if other nation's decide that it is a good idea - and perhaps there is money to be made - they can invite Google to do the same in their country.
By the way, has Google tried doing this in some parts of Russia yet? There are areas occupied by the 'nouveau riche' where they will be lucky to leave alive. Ditto, there are areas in China and N Korea I believe where they will not be welcomed. You see, I don't think that they will operate in such places with the same degree of freedom as they expect in some other places, because those nations deem it unacceptable behaviour.
Well, if you insist on being pedantic. Google personnel, or people employed by Google, drove the vehicle to the location in which the 360 degree camera was used. The view, as seen by the camera, was very much directed ('pointed') by people. Your contribution doesn't change the fact that Google direct where the camera is used and, in some cultures but obviously not yours, those places are deemed to be private i.e. it is perhaps not illegal but it is most certainly unacceptable behaviour to those living there. Why on earth do we need an image of every street in the world on the Internet? And, if we don't need 'every' street, why don't we ask the occupants of each street whether they want Google poking their cameras around?
There is no need for a battle for our hearts and minds in Europe. We are able to make our own judgements based on facts, not on another nation's propaganda campaign. We too have people (diplomats, businessmen, casual visitors etc) in the region and do not need to rely on a third party to tell us what has been happening there, and is actually happening now. Why do you feel that you need to mount a 'media war' in Europe. We are allies but, if this is how you treat your friends, perhaps we would be better off rethinking that deal.
Nit-picking, I know. The country is Great Britain, and its inhabitants are, for the most part, British. There is no 'Brittish' news that I can find. A runaway keyboard, perhaps? :-)
Certainly over here in Europe you will have just committed an offence. The unauthorised access of someone else's computer is illegal, yes, even those computers being used by criminals. There is no "Robin Hood Excuse" that will change the fact that your actions are illegal. Now, as the US has just been successful in claiming the extradition of a British cracker, I'm sure that the US will be equally happy to extradite all those Americans who hack into European criminals' computers to face charges over here. Alternatively, you might have been suggesting that all phishers are American and that as long as such actions are contained inside the USA it is all entirely acceptable.
That's one of the problems of being a vigilante, you often have to be a criminal to do what you 'believe' to be justice. It doesn't make the vigilante any better in my eyes.
Are you suggesting that Twitter has no right to comment on the actions of the PRC or MediaSentry? If you are, then you are following in the footsteps of the PRC and their wish to control information and suppress free speech.
I agree that Twitter is being stupid when he engages in one of his "single-person, numerous-monikas" conversations, but if he wishes to join in an intelligent conversation that he has as much right as you or I to do so.
On the other hand, if you were just informing the GP that Twitter uses a specific monika then I am confused with that fact's relevance to the topic under discussion.